Abubakari II revisited

[sundiata]

Disclaimer: To the ardent defenders of native American cultural isolation. I make no claims of African influence on native American culture; I only propose that there may have been contacts (big difference).

What excites me about the evidence pertaining to Abubakri II's successful voyage to the Americas, is reviewing the primary sources upon which the claims are made. Thus, it puts us in a position to maybe point out things that people like Van Sertima may have missed in his overarching theory of African contact, devoid of focal specificity (in this case, Abubakari II's voyage). I'm splitting my parent post several separate posts in order to cover more information over an extended period. I won't even be able to review all that I want to in the same night.

...................................

* The Garifuna.. Okay, so apparently the conventional view is that the Garifuna population (referred to by the British as the Black Caribs, to distinguish them from "Yellow Caribs) derives from a shipwrecked slave ship coming from Nigeria. Yet, I have a hard time making sense of when this would have occurred.

Père Raymond Breton first did research on the Garifuna population in the 1630s, recording legends on their own origin. I've desperately been trying to find the source of this particular encounter for some time but instead I've been forced to deal with this second-hand source, apparently from wikipedia, which is all over the net:

One of the earliest accounts of the ancestors of the Garinagu comes from the Frenchman Père Raymond Breton. Living on the island of Saint Vincent in the 1630s, he recorded the Black Caribs' story of their migration from South America's Orinoco region. According to legend, these Arawak speaking people of the Orinoco came to St. Vincent long before the arrival of Europeans to the New World. They lived for a long time in peace and tranquility until one day the island was attacked by a group of Carib men from the mainland. The Carib men slaughtered all the Arawak men and took the women as slave-wives. At some point, two West African slave carrying ships on their way to the Americas arrived on the island and were successfully integrated into the population, adding an African element to the culture.

^The source is unusual in that you can't discern what's being attributed to the Garifuna and what's being attributed to popular view. The conventional explanation for their existence in the Americas by scholars is indeed, that they are the result of ship-wrecked African slaves coming from Nigeria. Thus, obviously we can eliminate this part of the passage as being a part of Garifuna oral history.

Let's eliminate the redundancies also as in we know they speak Arawak and we understand from the previous sentence that they claim to have come from the Orinoco region before reaching St. Vincient---Harold Lawrence notes their continued presence in the Orinoco region and was somewhat baffled by it, likely because he didn't account for this early oral tradition. We should concentrate on what these Caribs told Breton in the 1630s, that "they came to St. Vincent long before the arrival of Europeans". Mind you, these are black Caribs talking, not yellow Caribs (In addition, if they were slaves, one wonders how they became acculturated so quickly, even speaking fluent Arawak). Now, time to turn the conventional view on its head. Please remember the date 1935 (when Breton published much of his work):

This is what the theory states, devoid of any consideration of Raymond Breton.

According to Shephard, around 1675, a slave ship was wrecked on the coast of what is known today as Bequia. The survivors of this shipwreck were then accepted by the indigenous peoples who then inhabited the island. Through inter-marriage between the two peoples, a new people appeared. They were called the 'Black Caribs' as distinct from the 'Yellow Caribs,' the original inhabitants….”

www.kacike.org/cac-ike/StVincent.html

So, to explain the presence of Blacks on St. Vincent, they cite events that took place at least 40 years after they were supposedly first documented by Europeans. Crazy, right? To top this all off, the Garifuna seem to be consistent in their claims as today many indeed claim descent from medieval African explorers (see "The Garifuna Journey"--documentary) who landed in the new world and St. Vincent "long before Europeans". Lawrence also cites evidence of Muslim retentions within Garifuna culture and Van sertima cites Alphonse de Quatrefages, who in turn cites reports as early presence of Blacks at St. Vincent but this isn't part of my analysis as it's clearly explained in Van Sertima's Early America.


Next: The Hull Bay Skeletons

[sundiata]

Okay.. There have been claims made that there are two "Negroid" skeletons first examined by scientists at the Smithsonian, dated approx. 1200 A.D. at St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands. I wanted to know the specifics, and whether or not these skeletons could have just as easily been Paleo-Indians so I tracked down a PDF of the official study, which surprisingly was conducted in part, by Larry Angel.

www.stcroixarchaeology.org/files/Hull_Bay_Skeletons_-_Ubelaker_-_Angel.pdf

It seems that there is no question that these skeletons were of Africans. Two sets of comparative analysis were formed. The facial composition as well as body build. It turns out that not only did they have decidedly African features, but elongated tropical body plans, consistent with an overall African morphology. A date was reached by dating an adornment on the arm of one of the specimens and even they were surprised that the date was definitely pre-Columbian. Again, there is little question about the date. However, it seems that the other skeleton (skeleton B), was clearly modern as conversely, it was associated with post-Columbian artifacts, namely coffin nails (Van Sertima neglected to mention this). Thus, they could not associate skeleton A with skeleton B, the former being associated with the pre-colonial artifacts. Their only doubt comes from complete speculation of accidental association:


"If this date of 1200 A.D. is correct, it is difficult to reconcile with the morphological evidence from the skeleton. Assuming that the identification and date of the vessel is correct, the most likely explanation is that the vessel-skeleton association was accidental or perhaps represents the chance finding of the vessel when the burial pit was dug originally. Possibly the contemporaries of skeleton A could have found the vessel and placed it with the skeleton at the time of burial. As unlikely as this procedure appears, it is certainly more conceivable than a Black presence on St. Thomas around 1200 A.D.---Smithsonian Institution


^^Now folks, let us put our critical thinking caps on for a second. What they are essentially saying, is that it is more likely to believe that either slave era Blacks established their own colony at St. Thomas (no historical data attests to this as far as I'm aware), buried their dead at Hull Bay and used random 400 year old native American artifacts to adorn their graves. Or rather, modern post colonial Blacks, living in meager non-urban settlements developed a similar custom of burying their dead which at this point would be a 700 year old native American artifacts that has absolutely no value to them or the said loved one. Is this really "more conceivable than a Black presence on St. Thomas around 1200 A.D." ?? Or in other words, more conceivable than the notion that African seafarers, who are documented to have attempted an Atlantic crossing around this time, umm, actually made it across!?

Note: Obviously the date 1200 A.D., or even 1250 A.D. at its closest, is still 62 years shy of Abubakari's purported voyage. However, taking into account the margins of error often associated with our dating techniques, I'm sure this very small discrepancy in time can be accounted for to conform to a theory claiming that African sailors landed near this area in the 14th century.

In association with this, Van sertima, in trying to force a connection, cites evidence of Proto-Tifinagh being found "near the area".. He claims that inscriptions were confirmed as such by the Lybian department of Antiquities. Actually, I tracked down the original report by Dr. Fell and the critique by Dr. David Kelly. Ignoring Fell's wild theories of Scandinavian association, they both agree that the inscriptions seem to indeed be Proto-Tiffinagh but the inscriptions are associated with the Bronze age and were found no where near the Virgin Islands, but in Ontario. While this deserves exploration, it has nothing to do with the Hull Bay skeletons or Abubakari II as they are separated by immense time and space.

See: Kelly, David. "Proto-Tiffinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas" (1990). Archaeological Review.

More later.....

[clydewin98]

Check out my video on the Mali expedition



Enjoy

[sundiata]

Journal of Christopher Columbus...

Not much to interpret here. It seems that Van Sertima quoted Columbus correctly, though sometimes out of context (which doesn't undermine his argument). I followed the source directing me to the book by John Boyd Thatcher, which can be easily accessed via archives.org or google books. It's called "Christopher Columbus: his life, his works, his remains" (1904) and comes in three volumes. For instance, this quote, often cited by Van Sertima and attributed to Columbus is found on page 380 in the 2nd volume:

and he (a Portuguese admiral) thought to investigate reports of the Indians of this Española who said that there had come to Española from the south and south-east, a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they called Guanin.

^According to the notes given by Thatcher, the Indians had told this to a Jaime Ferrer who documented this after being there previously (note that Columbus made three Journeys).. As you can see though, this isn't an eye-witness description by Columbus but a third person account.

..........................

Botanical data.. Assuming Abubakari II brought with him the provisions necessary for trade and survival in the seas and in a distant land, I'm sure various plants would have accompanied him. Van Sertima has claimed that the African bottle gourd, given its geographic origin must have made it to the Americas via direct colonization from Africa. I was convinced until I came across a paper which genetically tested the various bottle gourd species' found in the Americas, and they are of the Asian variety.

westinstenv.org/histwl/2009/08/23/an-asian-origin-for-a-10000-year-old-domesticated-plant-in-the-americas/

The authors suggest that it moved from Africa, to Asia, and then to the Americas via Paleo-Indians.

The other plant claims I won't deal with since it is outside the realm of archaeology and descriptions of plants (like the claim that the Portuguese found American cotton in Africa in the 15th century) devoid of physical specimens to analyze and date can't offer results either way.

[sundiata]

Apr 22, 2010 10:52:05 GMT -5 clydewin98 said:

Check out my video on the Mali expedition



Enjoy

Thanks.. I'll check it out.

Edit: Nice video.. Dr. Winters. Do you have any photographs or citations pointing to these Mande inscriptions being present in Brazil? I'd also like to know more about this "Mansar Akban". When did the Amerindians record his presence?

[sundiata]

Reliability of Al-Umari and the Malian Griot.

Ibn Amir Hajib continued: "I asked Sultan Musa how the kingdom fell to him, and he said: 'We belong to a house which hands on the king­ship by inheritance. The king who was my predecessor did not believe that it was impossible to discover the furthest limit of the Atlantic Ocean and wished vehemently to do so. So he equipped 200 ships filled with men and the same number equipped with gold, water, and provisions enough to last them for years, and he said to the man deputed to lead them: "Do not return until you reach the end of it or your provisions and water give out." They departed and a long time passed before anyone came back. Then one ship returned and we asked the captain what news they brought. He said: "Yes, O Sultan, we travelled for a long time until there appeared in the open sea [as it were] a river with a powerful current. Mine was the last of those ships. The [other] ships went on ahead but when they reached that place they did not return and no more was seen of them and we do not know what became of them. As for me, I went about at once and did not enter that river." But the sultan disbelieved him.

'"Then that Sultan got ready 2,000 ships, 1,000 for himself and the men whom he took with him and 1,000 for water and provisions. He left me to deputize for him and embarked upon the Atlantic Ocean with his men. That was the last we saw of him and all those who were with him, and so I became king in my own right.'

---Al-Umari

Now, Eurocentrists who dispute Al-umari's account would be hard pressed to explain why the same story is still repeated among Mali oral historians. Also, Euro detractors have often pointed out that if Abubakari actually took 2,000 ships across the Atlantic, then why were not even one of these ships discovered? They also cite that 2,000 seems like an excessive number. I'd rebut by asking them why not even one of the 3,000 ships that the Songhai used to cross the Niger river in their retreat against the Moroccan militia in 1591, were found? Simple. No one is looking for them. The odds of tripping over a medieval ship somewhere on the coastal tip of south America, is very slim.

For feasibility, I will quote Brent Campbell:

There have been several important experiments with African boats and the Atlantic currents. Starting in 1952, Dr. Alain Bombard sailed from Casablanca to Barbados in an African raft. In 1955, Dr. Hannes Lindemann sailed for fifty-two days from the Cape Verde Islands to the South American coast. Both journeys were made alone and the men arrived in good health. In 1969, Thor Heyerdahl conducted two experiments, one with the Ra I and the other with the Ra II. The Ra I and the Ra II were ships built identical to an earlier model African ship. The ships were built out of papyrus and were constructed the way they would have been during the Pre-Columbian era. The Ra I was built by the Buduma people first. The Ra I started at Safi in North Africa and sailed to Barbados. The Ra I fell short of making the journey across the Atlantic. The Ra II was built by a native American tribe, the Aymara, this ship made it from Africa to America successfully. These experiments prove that if these simple vessels could negotiate the Atlantic Ocean using one of the two currents, then some of Africa's more sophisticated ships could have made the trip.

Let's do some simple math assuming that Abubakari II actually attempted the voyage. If these people made it in one try in one ship, wouldn't the odds of Abubakari II successfully making that cross be 2,000 fold in his favor? It seems that the previous expedition, which was swallowed by a wave was a fluke, or maybe Abubakari II was justified in not believing the returning sailor, who likely got scared. Also, if you read the quote, the sailor stated that they were in "open sea". How did he find his way back and against the current from that far out if they didn't already have some sort of previous knowledge? What in the world would make one risk their life on the assumption that there's a limit to the Atlantic, or as Diawara states, an opposite bank like that on the Niger river? Who told them that or was Abubarkari II simply that brazen??

[clydewin98]

Upon arrival in America the Manding sailed along the coast until they found rivers like the Orinoco in Venezuela, and Amazon in Brazil which they used to move into the inland parts of South America. Along these rivers the Manding have left many inscriptions to point the way to good camp sites for Abubakari and the main expeditionary force.

Many of these inscriptions have been found along the Rio Chao river in the state of Alagos in Brazil. These inscriptions are of two kinds. One group of inscriptions were meant to warn the Manding expeditionary force not to camp in certain areas. Inscriptions in this category are found at Piraicaba, Brazil. Another group of inscriptions were left in areas suitable for settlement.

Once a safe place was found for settlement, the Manding colonists built stone cities or mound habitations. One of these lost cities was found in A.D. 1753, by banderistas (bandits). These inscriptions were found in the State of Bahia,Brazil by Padre Tellesde Menezes, in Marajo near the Paraoacu and Una rivers engraved over a mausolea. They tell us that the personage buried in the Tomb was named Pe.

The most startling evidence of Malians in Brazil , is the "Brazil
Tablet", discovered by Col. P.H. Fawcett in an unexplored region near the Culuene river. The interesting thing about this Tablet, was the fact it had "African pigment" and features.




The personage in this Tablet was an elite of Malian colony in Brazil.Evidence suggesting a Manding origin for the Brazil Tablet are 1) THE CROWN worn by the personage on the tablet; 2) the Manding inscriptions inscribed across the chest and feet of the figure on the Tablet; and 3) the evidence of breeches similar to the Manding style worn by the personage depicted on the Tablet.

The decipherment of these inscriptions detail the burial place, and cause of death of a Mansa. it appears that the Mansa on the Brazil Tablet" was named Be. It tells us that Be, was buried in a hemisphere tomb (i.e., mound).

[anansi]

Apr 22, 2010 0:51:08 GMT -5 sundiata said:

Okay.. There have been claims made that there are two "Negroid" skeletons first examined by scientists at the Smithsonian, dated approx. 1200 A.D. at St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands. I wanted to know the specifics, and whether or not these skeletons could have just as easily been Paleo-Indians so I tracked down a PDF of the official study, which surprisingly was conducted in part, by Larry Angel.

www.stcroixarchaeology.org/files/Hull_Bay_Skeletons_-_Ubelaker_-_Angel.pdf

It seems that there is no question that these skeletons were of Africans. Two sets of comparative analysis were formed. The facial composition as well as body build. It turns out that not only did they have decidedly African features, but elongated tropical body plans, consistent with an overall African morphology. A date was reached by dating an adornment on the arm of one of the specimens and even they were surprised that the date was definitely pre-Columbian. Again, there is little question about the date. However, it seems that the other skeleton (skeleton B), was clearly modern as conversely, it was associated with post-Columbian artifacts, namely coffin nails (Van Sertima neglected to mention this). Thus, they could not associate skeleton A with skeleton B, the former being associated with the pre-colonial artifacts. Their only doubt comes from complete speculation of accidental association:


"If this date of 1200 A.D. is correct, it is difficult to reconcile with the morphological evidence from the skeleton. Assuming that the identification and date of the vessel is correct, the most likely explanation is that the vessel-skeleton association was accidental or perhaps represents the chance finding of the vessel when the burial pit was dug originally. Possibly the contemporaries of skeleton A could have found the vessel and placed it with the skeleton at the time of burial. As unlikely as this procedure appears, it is certainly more conceivable than a Black presence on St. Thomas around 1200 A.D.---Smithsonian Institution


^^Now folks, let us put our critical thinking caps on for a second. What they are essentially saying, is that it is more likely to believe that either slave era Blacks established their own colony at St. Thomas (no historical data attests to this as far as I'm aware), buried their dead at Hull Bay and used random 400 year old native American artifacts to adorn their graves. Or rather, modern post colonial Blacks, living in meager non-urban settlements developed a similar custom of burying their dead with would be at this point would be a 700 year old native American artifacts that has absolutely no value to them or the said loved one. Is this really "more conceivable than a Black presence on St. Thomas around 1200 A.D." ?? Or in other words, more conceivable than the notion that African seafarers, who are documented to have attempted an Atlantic crossing around this time, umm, actually made it across!?

Note: Obviously the date 1200 A.D., or even 1250 A.D. at its closest, is still 62 years shy of Abubakari's purported voyage. However, taking into account the margins of error often associated with our dating techniques, I'm sure this very small discrepancy in time can be accounted for to conform to a theory claiming that African sailors landed near this area in the 14th century.

In association with this, Van sertima, in trying to force a connection, cites evidence of Proto-Tifinagh being found "near the area".. He claims that inscriptions were confirmed as such by the Lybian department of Antiquities. Actually, I tracked down the original report by Dr. Fell and the critique by Dr. David Kelly. Ignoring Fell's wild theories of Scandinavian association, they both agree that the inscriptions seem to indeed be Proto-Tiffinagh but the inscriptions are associated with the Bronze age and were found no where near the Virgin Islands, but in Ontario. While this deserves exploration, it has nothing to do with the Hull Bay skeletons or Abubakari II as they are separated by immense time and space.

See: Kelly, David. "Proto-Tiffinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas" (1990). Archaeological Review.

More later.....

Oh!! I read later that they couldn't properly date the skeletons because salt water had seeped in ..and they found a nail a the same level at the find..Van Sertima had responded that the nail is of no consequence when that very civilization was making instruments to perform delicate eye surgery.

And I always wondered why any of his detractors didn't go looking for or explaining Columbus's notes.

[anansi]

Apr 22, 2010 10:52:05 GMT -5 clydewin98 said:

Check out my video on the Mali expedition



Enjoy

Nice vid..at times 7;40 in the video you mentioned Mandings at Panama

"Vasco Nunez de Balboa, 25 September 1513, coming down the slopes of Quarequa, which is near Darien (now called Panama) saw two tall black men who had been captured by the native Americans." And further, that Peter Martyr, "said that Negroes had been shipwrecked in that area and had taken refuge in the mountains. Martyr refers to them as `Ethiopian pirates.'

"Lopez de Gomara also describes the blacks Europeans sighted for the first time in Panama: `These people are identical with the Negroes we have seen in Guinea.' De Bourbourg also reports that there were two peoples indigenous to Panama--the Mandinga (black skin) and the Tule (red skin)

They Came before Columbus:


I have always find this fresco interesting..
What looks to be a Euro? type figure being sacrificed native style by two very dark-skinned figures if these are of African decent then they must have gone native culturally

[Charlie Bass]

I think it certain is plausible if not truthful, that there was medieval Pre-Columbian contact between Africans and Native Americans, the only people quick to dismiss it without any thought are those scholars who just will not accept that notion of Africans travelling by boats to the Americas except as slaves

[sundiata]

^They'll do anything to deny the possibility. For instance, I was just reading the German wikipedia article on Abubakari II not too long ago and they even try to posit that Abubakari II didn't exist. Stating 1) oral tradition doesn't speak of him 2), Al-umari could have created a contrast character for Mansa Musa's own aggrandizement, 3) He isn't mentioned by Ibn Khaldun. All of these are false!

1) Oral tradition clearly remembers him and he is just starting to be spoken about in public by Malian keepers of knowledge, such as Sadio Diabate. Gaoussou Diawara states that Malian griots kept the Abubakari II venture under wraps because they felt Abubakari II didn't deserve praise as he abandoned the responsibility of governing his kingdom for no reason.

2) This is just silly because Al-Umari had no motivation to do so. In fact, it makes no since considering that it isn't Al-Umari's story, but a story relayed to him, in that he'd never met Mansa Musa. Mansa Musa told this to another Egyptian who relayed the story to Al-Umari.

3) This is the biggest lie of them all. Me and Scott Free from English wikipedia broke this down a long time ago and Ibn Khaldun's kings list clearly lists two Abu Bkrs.

www.jstor.org/pss/3171932 ...

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

So typical of the Eurocentric Academe. In order to discredit
their target they will make all confirming evidence that has
never been questioned until a black scholar (which to them
automatically makes him an Afrocentric) cites it into 'sloppy
scholarship.'

That's it. Be black, make a claim disconfirming black inferiority,
and you and all your chain of reference no matter how much
previously respected instantly become 'sloppy scholars.'

It's so funny and predictable it makes me spit and laugh myself sick!